Commonly employed husbandry, training and other management practices used with racehorses and sports horses are being seriously questioned on welfare grounds. 

These concerns have been outlined in detail for Thoroughbreds by Garnham (2024a) – the penname under which the author also writes. The format consisted of 255 brief, direct statements, all of which are supportable by the scientific literature, published equestrian ‘how-to’ advisory literature and/or are clearly observable occurrences in many stables or at racetracks.

A significant proportion of these racehorse issues also apply to sports horses. Garnham (2024b) followed his earlier critique with advice on remedial approaches, consisting of 97 such statements, which emphasised education.

Highly qualified equestrian and other scientists whose expertise is recognised internationally have also drawn attention to significant welfare problems (e.g., Cook, 2003; McGreevy et al 2012, 2017; Mellor and Beausoleil, 2017; Uldahl and Clayton 2018; Mellor 2020).

When welfare problems are raised with governing bodies, such as the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) whose remit includes protecting and advancing the sport, and by implication the interests of elite equestrians, its members use many tactics to defend the status quo (Garnham 2024c). Understandably, equestrians whose status, influence and financial standing and commitments are threatened, often do the same.

One among several tactics is to question the expertise of those who raise these matters (Garnham 2024c).

The author’s expertise in pain research

The primary focus of this article is pain, specifically, it is mouth pain in horses , which I outlined and published under my own name, Mellor (2020). My understanding of equine pain was facilitated by over 30 years of detailed and diverse studies of the pain caused by tissue-damaging husbandry practices.

These practices were studied in lambs, kids, calves, piglets, dogs, deer and horses, where the purpose was to define the duration of the pain, and to assess the efficacy and duration of nerve blockades, anti-inflammatory analgesics, and general anaesthetics (dogs and pregnant sheep and goats) in minimising experiences of pain.

The practices assessed depended on the species, and included castration, tail docking, disbudding, dehorning, velvet antler removal, uterine surgery (sheep and goats) and/or ovariohysterectomy (dogs only).

These were achieved by cutting, constriction, crushing, compression, cautery or cryocautery. Different methods for achieving the same objectives were also compared.

The indices of pain evaluated in these studies were mainly the release of the stress hormone cortisol and the presence or absence of pain-related, species-specific behaviours, validated by selective use of nerve blockade and an associated absence of the cortisol and behavioural responses. Some key references to these and related studies have been provided by Mellor (2020). This was teamwork instigated by Mellor and jointly led with Professor Kevin Stafford.

Finally, this programme provided robust scientific foundations for describing the duration and intensity of the pain caused by the different husbandry procedures, and for the pain control methods required by New Zealand’s Code of Welfare for Painful Husbandry Procedures 2018.

When Professor Craig Johnson joined the pain research team, he established a new phase of the programme. Prof. Johnson brought expertise which showed that noxious sensory inputs generated peripherally and carried as impulses in pain pathways to the brain, produced distinct patterns of brain electrical activity, i.e., EEG patterns (Johnson et al 2008).

These EEG patterns had previously been established in humans as linked to the conscious experience of pain.

This work validated the use of cortisol responses and specific behaviours as indices of pain due to tissue damage, because it demonstrated, for example, that indicative EEG patterns followed scoop dehorning of calves and were absent when prior nerve blockade was used (Gibson et al 2007). Likewise, with velvet antler removal in deer with and without nerve blockade (Johnson et al 2005).

Consequently, these findings forestalled any skeptical claims which might have emerged (although they did not) that the indices used were merely facets of the stress response with no proof of a link to the conscious experience of pain.

This EEG work was initially undertaken to explore the need for and the efficacy of stunning before the neck cut during slaughter of livestock; key references to this have been provided by Mellor (2020). This work helped to ensure that the required stunning and slaughter practices in New Zealand’s Code of Welfare: Commercial Slaughter 2018 would be humane.

The publication record for the pain research team speaks for itself:

• 55 peer-reviewed primary science articles;
• 59 review articles also peer reviewed;
• 60 major presentations to national and international conferences, working groups and specialist meetings.

Gaining dressage points by piling pain on pain

These images are the property and courtesy of Crispin Parelius Johannessen

Among the numerous areas of welfare concern in equine competitive sports (Fenner et al 2016), dressage is currently receiving particular attention. This is because of the “remorseless” demands by riders and their support staff to ensure that horses will meet the specified behavioural standards for dressage competitions, specifically to avoid penalty reductions in their scores (e.g., Fenner et al 2016).

The adjective “remorseless” is appropriate because many equestrians seem reluctant to acknowledge that some methods they use cause pain, and because this pain continues with little or no relief during each judging session, as also during prior and subsequent training sessions (Mellor 2020).

Regarding mouth pain, it is important to note that the tongue and other mouth parts have exquisite tactile sensitivity (Haggard and de Boer, 2014; Liu et al 2022).

Marked compression of the tongue (see the Crispin Johannessen’s Image Folder in Mellor 2024), plus pressure on the periosteum of the diastema, whether they occur alone or together, would be extremely painful (Mellor 2020). This would be exacerbated by any ischaemic pain generated within the segment of the tongue distal to the compression caused by the bit. To be very clear, the degree of compression of the tongue under the bit, and any such pressure on the periosteum of the mandible, each alone, or both together, would be extremely painful.

The degree of the bit-induced compression of the tongue apparent in Johannessen’s photographs indicates that blood flow distal to the bit would be severely reduced or stopped, potentially giving rise to ischaemic pain, well recognised as extremely noxious. Arguing about whether the distal tongue is blue or photographs of it have been manipulated is a clear diversionary tactic. This has no impact on the veracity of the first clear statements above, that bit-induced compression of the tongue and/or pressure on the periosteum of the mandible would be very painful independently of whether ischaemic pain may be involved as well.

No matter what the combination of noxious sensory inputs is from the mouths of dressage horses, the following are clear signs of bit-induced pain while the horses are in the “collected” and “hyperflexed” low jowl angle posture maintained during dressage sessions (Mellor and Beausoleil 2017; Mellor 2020; Johannessen in Mellor 2024).

The signs are an open mouth, continuous movements of the mouth and/or tongue, and a “pain face” (Wathen et al 2015; Gleerup et al 2015, 2016; Machteld et al 2016; Della Costa et al 2020; Dyson et al 2017; Mullard et al 2017; McLennan et al 2019). These are all easily discerned throughout; i.e., throughout continuous high quality video recordings of complete dressage judging sessions. Observation of such videos challenges the diversionary tactic of discounting the Johannessen photographs as mere “moments in time”.

Also note that simply changing the dressage double bridle for one with a single bit will not prevent bit-induced mouth pain, because the rein tensions transmitted to the single bit needed to maintain the required/permitted low jowl angles for long periods, would be likely to cause pain (for references see Mellor 2020).

Finally, in addition to the noxious impacts of the pain itself, bit-related welfare impacts are likely also to include anxiety when anticipating the pain that will accompany the judging session, and fear whilst experiencing it, especially when the pain is severe (Mellor 2020).

Attempts to camouflage pain-related behaviours are also apparent. Perhaps the most obvious is use of tightly cranked nosebands to restrict mouth opening and prevent visible tongue movements which, if observed by judges, would incur point deductions as a penalty (McGreevy et al 2012, 2017; Fenner et al 2016; Doherty et al 2017). Note that using such tight nosebands to prevent the evidence of bit-induced mouth pain from being seen does nothing to alleviate the mouth pain itself.

In fact, when cranked tight, nosebands themselves cause physiological signs of pain (McGreevy et al 2012; Fenner et al 2016) and bone lesions (Pérez-Manrique et al 2020). The lesions indicate that the pain would be caused by mechanical stimulation of periosteal nociceptors due to localised high pressures of the noseband on bone (Nencini and Ivanusic 2016; Doherty et al 2017). Accordingly, the use of such nosebands would add to the pain-related noxiousness of the whole experience. It is, therefore, of interest, that the word “pain” is conspicuous by its absence from the FEI website on Choosing the Right Bit and Noseband Combinations (FEI 2022).

The hidden noxiousness of breathlessness in dressage sessions

This image is the property and courtesy of Crispin Parelius Johannessen

Another noxious experience is also likely to be generated by dressage tack and its use. It is breathlessness (Beausoleil and Mellor 2015; Mellor and Beausoleil 2017). In human terms, breathlessness is one of the most affectively aversive experiences we can have. It alerts to compromised respiratory gas exchange, it’s noxiousness being proportional to the degree of compromise. The noxiousness creates a sense of urgency to respond, sometimes great urgency to respond because seriously compromised breathing can cause death within very few minutes.

For its breathing to be effective, the horse is obliged to breathe through the nose. When starting to run, bit-free horses first swallow with a closed mouth. The negative pressure this creates in the oral cavity sucks the flexible soft palate firmly down onto the root of the tongue and holds it there while the oral suction persists. This widens the nasopharyngeal airway and reduces resistance to airflow in that section of the upper respiratory tract. The open mouth, caused by the bit and invariably seen throughout dressage judging sessions, prevents this natural response to exercise. The soft palate, no longer sucked down onto the tongue, rises into the nasopharynx and flaps with each intake and expulsion of breath; this impedes the airflow. In addition, dressage rules demand that low jowl angles be maintained throughout judging sessions, jowl angles which, at the greatest angles permitted, are still much lower than any seen naturally in exercising bridle-free horses (Mellor and Beausoleil 2017). The jowl angles permitted or required by the rules, very markedly narrow the airway close to the larynx and disproportionately impede airflow (Cook 1999; Zebisch et al 2014).

Combined, both of these airflow restrictions are likely to generate two forms of breathlessness, “respiratory effort” and “air hunger”, both very aversive (Beausoleil and Mellor 2015; Mellor and Beausoleil, 2016). There is an additional factor that increases the likelihood of breathlessness, i.e., the horses are exercising throughout each dressage session. They therefore need to increase their oxygen supply to meet its greater consumption, and to avoid “air hunger” they need to expel the greater quantities of the carbon dioxide produced by the exercise.

Dressage judging criteria disregard the horses’ noxious experiences

This image is the property and courtesy of Crispin Parelius Johannessen

Dressage or “training” is regarded as a form of exhibition or competitive horse riding, and sometimes an art form. It is pursued solely to demonstrate the mastery of the rider over the horse. Such mastery, i.e., the domination of the horse by the rider, is perhaps understandable given its 19^th Century origins as a competitive activity (The History of Dressage, British Dressage), combined with the then general ignorance or denial of the fact that horses and other animals can suffer.

Described by the FEI as the “highest expression of horse training” (Dressage, Wikipedia), it requires the execution of precise movements by trained horses responding to barely perceptible cues from their riders. Particularly important criteria for judging dressage competitions are the horses’ pace and bearing in performing walks, trots, canters, and more “specialised manoeuvres”. The demonstration of advanced training skills arises because of the unnatural behavioural combinations that are included in the whole performance, established by the training that specifically produces each one of the required unnatural behaviours.

The claimed fundamental purposes of dressage appear to be three-fold (Dressage, Wikipedia): (1) It “is to develop, through standardised progressive training methods, a horse’s natural athletic ability and willingness to perform, thereby maximising its potential as a riding horse.” (2) “At the peak of a dressage horse’s gymnastic development, the horse responds smoothly to a skilled rider’s minimal aids.” (3) “The rider is relaxed and appears effort-free while the horse willingly performs the requested movements.”

The evidence provided above and elsewhere (e.g., Mellor 2020) of severe bit-induced mouth pain shows that this pain, or the threat of it, would have a coercive influence on horses throughout dressage judging sessions. Accordingly, it is suggested that these three purposes be reconsidered.

• Purpose (1): The suggested willingness of the horses to perform is not supported by the presence of the coercive bit-induced mouth pain throughout each dressage session.
• Purpose (2). Severe bit-induced mouth pain cannot be regarded as a minimal aid, however apparently skilled the rider might appear to be.
• Purpose (3). As already noted, coerced by bit-induced mouth pain, the horse cannot be regarded as performing willingly.

In addition, regarding Purpose (1), the implication that dressage training is required for the potential of riding horses to be maximised is not borne out by the low proportion of dressage-trained horses or riders. Also, it is hard to understand how training horses to engage in unnatural behaviours on command helps to develop their natural athletic abilities.

Concluding remarks

It is no longer possible to ignore the consequences of bit-induced mouth pain in dressage horses and horses during other competitions. The age-old adage applies here: namely that “people’s true intentions will be judged by their actions, what they actually do, not by what they say they will do.” History will judge the integrity of the members of governing organisations that claim equine welfare is their top priority. In some cases, at present, it remains to be seen whether that judgement will be favourable.

References (in alphabetical order):

Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 44–51.

Casey, V.; McGreevy, P.D.; O’Muiris, E.; Doherty, O. (2013). A preliminary report on estimating the pressures exerted by a crank noseband in the horse. J. Vet. Behav. 2013, 8(6):479–484. DOI:10.1016/j.jveb.2013.06.003

Cook, W.R. Pathophysiology of bit control in the horse. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1999, 19, 196–204

Cook, W.R. Bit-induced pain: A cause of fear, flight, and facial neuralgia in the horse. Pferdeheilkunde 2003, 19, 75–82.

Dalla Costa, E.; Stucke, D.; Dai, F.; Minero, M.; Leach, M.C.; Lebelt. D. Using the horse grimace scale (HGS) to assess pain associated with acute laminitis in horses (Equus caballus). Animals 2016, 6, 47,
doi:10.3390/ani6080047.

Doherty, O.; Casey, V.; McGreevy, P.; Arkins, S. Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports – An International Study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12(1): e0169060. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169060

Dressage, Wikipedia. Accessed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressage

Dyson, S.; Berger, J.M.; Ellis, A.D.; Mullard, J. Can the presence of musculoskeletal pain be determined from the facial expressions of ridden horses (FEReq)? J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 19, 78–89, doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2017.03.0 05.

FEI 2022, Choosing the Right Bit and Noseband Combinations: Accessed at: https://www.fei.org/stories/lifestyle/health-fitness/choosing-right-bit-and-noseband-combinations-trust-equestrian

Fenner, K.; Yoon, S.; White, P.; Starling, M.; McGreevy, P. The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses. PLoS ONE 2016, 11(5): e0154179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154179

Garnham, J. “Thoroughbred Horse Welfare Challenges: From Rape to Relegation.” Horses and People, July 2024a: https://horsesandpeople.com.au/thoroughbred-welfare-challenges-from-rape-to-relegation/

Garnham, J. “Improving Sports’ Horse Welfare: A Way Forward.” Horses and People, September 2024b: https://horsesandpeople.com.au/improving-sports-horse-welfare-a-way-forward/

Garnham, J. “Seven Pillars of Deception to Delay Action on Horse Welfare,” Horses and People, October 2024c: https://horsesandpeople.com.au/seven-pillars-of-deception-delaying-action-on-horse-welfare/

Gibson, T.J.; Johnson, C.B.; Stafford, K.J.; Mitchinson, S.L.; Mellor D.J. Validation of the acute electroencephalographic responses of calves to noxious stimulus with scoop dehorning. N. Z. Vet. J. 2007, 55, 152-157.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00480169.2007.36760

Gleerup, K.B.; Forkman, B.; Lindegaard, C.; Andersen, P.H. An equine pain face. Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2015,103–114, doi:10.1111/vaa.12212.

Gleerup, K.B.; Lindegaard, C. Recognition and quantification of pain in horses: A tutorial review. Equine Vet. Educ. 2016, 28, 47–57, doi:10.1111/eve.12383.

Haggard, P.; de Boer, L. Oral somatosensory awareness. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 47, 469–484.

Johnson, C.B.; Murrell, J.C.; Gibson, T.G.; Mellor, D.J. (2008). Innovative refinements to anaesthesia techniques can deliver pain research without pain. AATEX Journal 2008, 14, Special Issue, 97-100.

Johnson, C.B.; Wilson, P.R.; Woodbury, M.R.; Caulkett, N.A. Comparison of analgesic techniques for antler removal in halothane-anaesthetized red deer (Cervus elaphus): Electroencephalographic responses. Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2005, 32, 61–71.

Lane, J.G.; Blandon, B.; Little, D.R.M.; Naylor, J.R.J.; Franklin, S.H. Dynamic obstruction of the equine upper respiratory tract. Part 1. Observations during high-speed treadmill endoscopy in 600 Thoroughbred racehorses. Equine Vet. J. 2006, 38, 393–399.

Liu, J.; Camilla Cattaneo, C.; Papavasileiou, M.; Methven, L.; Bredie, W.L.P. A review on oral tactile sensitivity: measurement techniques, influencing factors and its relation to food perception and preference. Food Qual. Pref. 2022, 100, 10462

Mantyh, P.W. The neurobiology of skeletal pain. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2014, 39, 508–519, doi:10.1111/enj.12462.

McGreevy, P.D.; Doherty, O.; Channonc, W.; Kyrklund. K.; Webster. J.. The use of nose bands in equitation and the merits of an international
Equestrian welfare and safety committee: A commentary. Vet. J. 2017, 222, 36-40.

McGreevy, P.; Warren-Smith, A.; Guisard, Y. The effect of double bridles and jaw-clamping crank nosebands on facial cutaneous and ocular temperature in horses. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2012, 7, 142–148.

McLennan. K.M.; Miller, A.L.; Dalla Costa, E.; Stucke, D.; Corke, M.J.; Broom, D.M.; Leach, M.C. Conceptual and methodological issues relating to pain assessment in mammals: The development and utilisation of pain facial expression scales. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 217, 1–15.

Mellor, D.J. Mouth pain in horses: Physiological foundations, behavioural indices, welfare implications and a suggested solution. Animals 2020, 10(4), 572; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040572

Mellor, D.J. “Bit-Induced Mouth Pain and Wider Equine Welfare Assessments are Ignored in a Paper on Bridle and Bit Fit.” Horses and People; December 2024: https://horsesandpeople.com.au/mellor-critiques-bridle-and-bit-fit-paper/

Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J. Equine welfare during exercise: An evaluation of breathing, breathlessness and bridles. Animals, 2017, 7(6), 41; doi:10.3390/ani7060041. Click on: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/6/41

Mullard, J.; Berger, J.M.; Ellis, A.D.; Dyson, S. Development of an ethogram to describe facial expressions in ridden horses (FEReq). J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 18, 7–12, doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2016.11.005.

Nencini, S.; Ivanusic, J. The physiology of bone pain. How much do we really know? Front. Physiol. 2016, 26:7:157. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00157.eCollection 2016.

Pérez-Manrique, L.; León-Pérez, K.; Zamora-Sánchez, E.; Davies, S.; Ober, C.; Wilson, B.; McGreevy, P. Prevalence and distribution of lesions in the nasal bones and mandibles of a sample of 144 riding horses. Animals 2020, 10(9), 1661; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091661

The History of Dressage, British Dressage. Accessed at: https://www.britishdressage.co.uk/get-involved/what-is-dressage/the-history-of-dressage/

Uldahl, M.; Clayton, H. Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses. Equine Vet. Educ. 2018, 51,154–162, doi:10.1111/evj.12827.

van Dierendonck, M.C.; van Loon, J.P.A.M. Monitoring acute equine visceral pain with the equine Utrecht University scale for composite pain assessment (EQUUS-COMPASS) and the equine Utrecht University scale for facial assessment of pain (EQUUS-FAP): A validation study. Vet. J. 2016, 216, 175–177.

Wathan, J.; Burrows, A.M.; Waller, B.M.; McComb, K. EquiFACS: The equine facial action coding system. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131738, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131738.

Zebisch, A.; May, A.; Reese, S.; Gehlen, H. Effects of different head-neck positions on the larynxes of ridden horses. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2014, 98, 894–900.

Biographical Details:

Emeritus Prof David Mellor is the architect of the Five Domains Model for Animal Welfare Assessment and Monitoring, which he developed over 3 decades working with a number of animal welfare academics. David graduated with a Bachelor of Science with Honours from New England University, Australia, in 1966, and obtained a PhD from Edinburgh University in 1969. After completing his PhD, he spent 18 years as Head of the Physiology Department and Leader of the Perinatal Studies Group at the Moredun Research Institute in Edinburgh. He then spent 10 years as Professor and Head of the Department of Physiology and Anatomy in the Veterinary Science Faculty at Massey University, New Zealand. Thereafter until his realignment in 2018 he was the Foundation Director of the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre at Massey University. In 1999 the Minister of Agriculture in New Zealand appointed him as Chairman of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, a position he held for 6 years. He has been an active researcher, teacher and consultant in animal welfare science, the physiology of the foetus and newborn, and bioethics as it applies to animals. He has more than 575 publications in these areas, including 6 books.

James Garnham is the penname of David Mellor. He is a Professor Emeritus aged 82 years, who draws on 55 years of post-PhD scholarly experience and advisory roles as a biomedical scientist, animal welfare scientist, and bioethicist. James has lived in Australia (24 years), Scotland (21 years), and now New Zealand (37 years so far). David Mellor, BSc (Hons), PhD, Hon Assoc RCVS, ONZM, is Professor Emeritus and Foundation Director of the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre at Massey University, New Zealand. He has served on numerous national and international animal welfare advisory committees and has wide experience of integrating scientific, veterinary, industry, consumer, animal welfare, legal, cultural and ethical interests while developing animal welfare standards, regulations and laws.